Inquiring minds want to know.

The problem, Nimrod, is that you are too focused on what the Church says, and what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries said: that the Book of Abraham is a translation of the papyrus. And don't get on your thing that this is the plain, obvious meaning of what they have been saying for over a century and a half.

You need to understand how the papyrus actually worked.



"Use the magic feather," Timothy the mouse guides Dumbo, who is afraid to open his ears and fly. He puts the feather in Dumbo's trunk and says with absolute conviction, if you hold this, you will have the power to fly; just open your "wings."

Many people have offered us "magic feathers" throughout our lives. Very well-intentioned parents, teachers, and elders have said, "work hard, and you'll be rewarded."

But what happens when the magic feather slips through Dumbo's grasp? He believes all his power to fly was in that feather, and without it he is paralyzed with fear.

When we lose a job, an opportunity, or anything else that felt like the roadway to our desire, we seem to act like we have lost our magic feather. "Without [fill-in-the-blank], I will never be a writer or a famous performer, or I won't reach the financial goal I set, or I won't get that apartment I wanted." And this is the way we use our disappointments to block our future success and keep ourselves small - by making certain circumstances into magic feathers, without which we cannot function.

Once we have identified our "magic feather," we put all of our stock in that. Essentially, we give our power away to it.

Then, suddenly, we find ourselves high up on a platform with hundreds or thousands of people watching, a little mouse in our hat yelling, "Fly! Fly!" A gust of wind has swept the magic feather from our grip. Frantic and terrified, paralyzed by the loss of that feather that slipped away just as easily as it had come, we stand there, frozen. Everyone is going to be disappointed in us. Maybe the circus master will hurt us or leave us without sustenance. Or, if we risk the leap, quite literally, we fear instantaneous death.

But the truth is this: "The magic feather was just a gag - you can fly!" Timothy shouts this desperately, trying to get Dumbo to simply stop clenching and open his ears.

As we let go and trust, we see it is our own strength, our own essence that allows us to fly. It is not that lost job that would have brought us to the feeling of wealth and abundance we seek. As soon as we release the job as the magic feather, there is room for wealth and abundance to come in the best, easiest way possible. Through our natural gifts - no matter how freakish they may appear on the surface - we naturally take off. Because it wasn't Dumbo's magic feather, but the giant ears he had so fearfully tried to hide, that let him fly.

Bump: Earth to Will Schryver, Earth to Schryver.

I'm glad to be of service.

Joseph Smith assigned the sound/meaning of "Shulem" to one of these two groups of characters:



Truth be told, I'm not sure anyone knows which of the two is considered to be "above the hand" of the character to whom the name of "Shulem" was assigned. In any case, it's one of the two, and for purposes of the Book of Abraham, it represents "Shulem," as stated in the explanations that accompany Facsimile #3: "Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

Paging the basement… will Mr. Paul Osborne please answer the white courtesy phone.

Let me see if I can play that game:

TITUS ANDRONICUS

Explanation: Aristotle Smith, one of the participants on Mormon Discussions, as represented by the characters above which are in red.

Yep, thanks for the explanation, it makes perfect sense.

Another confirming witness of the ancient Roman origins of the Mormon Discussions board.

P.S. Doesn't matching up words with characters sort of undercut the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't purporting to have actually translated the papyrus?

You mean they don't match? :shocked:

I'm sure there is some explanation in the offing about how "represents" doesn't mean that there is a literal signification. Something like how four leaf clovers represent Irish people or Prince's (or whatever he calls himself these days) name used to be an unintelligible symbol.

Why would he do that? What is the purpose of assigning characters to a certain meaning - characters of which the true translation has nothing to do with?

Is this going to be the apologetic for the KEP as well? Joseph Smith et. al. knew they weren't translating, but for whatever reason, they decided to assign certain characters to the text of the book of abraham?

I think Zeezrom or Rambo started a thread about this over on MAD and they came up with some creative answers. Yeah, they were ridiculous, but sometimes you just have to sit back and admire the creativity induced by otherwise smart people engaged in Olympic level mental gymnastics.

Oh my. We're now dealing with a different shade of stupid.

Maybe the characters "represent" shulem in the same way some Mormons when I was a kid said the rock band Kiss was evil because KISS "represented" Knights In Satan's Service.

This truly is a whole new shade of stupid. The best apologetic answer we're to expect is that we don't really know what the word "represented" means in the context of written characters supposedly representing a person's name? Should intelligent, thoughtful people really expect some clever equivocation about what "as represented by the characters above his hand" means?

Should intelligent people, who exercise careful and critical thinking in their lives, really consider this evidence and conclude that the more likely answer to the problem of these characters apparently spelling out something completely unrelated to name Shulem, or Shulem's status as a waiter, is that we don't really understand what the words "as represented" mean? And then this intelligent, critical thinker should just assume that in some way, the characters really do "represent" Shulem, but we'll never know just how, since it's all some big woo-woo mystery that man was not meant to know?

If man was not meant to know it, then why did Joseph Smith act so confident that he did in fact know it? And why did Joseph Smith choose to speak in some secret code that only looked like English, but in fact means something totally different?

MAD Shulem thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/49059-shulem/

Thanks Beastie. Here is one of the more sophisticated arguments from the MAD thread that relies on various interpretations of "represented."

Kind of reminds me of fussing over the meaning of the word "is."

I will ascend from hell to answer this post. William Schryver has employed apologetic tricks but they do little for his cause.



You’re not glad, William, you’re uneasy about having to talk about the name Shulem. Not even Hugh Nibley had much of a stomach for it.



Whoah! This is a trick. Joseph Smith did not ASSIGN anything to the name. Your use of the word assign is an apologetic trick designed to change the course of an original meaning to something unrelated. Your use of the word ASSIGN is improperly applied. The Church officially introduces the Book of Abraham with its accompanying Facsimiles as, “The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri”. Hence, the applied application from Joseph Smith was nothing more and nothing less than a TRANSLATION – and a translation of a foreign language is to convert a language into another language inasmuch as both nationalities have the same testimony and may be edified together. The gift of tongues and the gift of language is to cause an unknown language to become one in your hand or one in your mouth.

Therefore, William’s use of the word ASSIGN is a cheap trick to get people to think that a seer/translator doesn’t actually translate a foreign language in the ordinary sense. He wants to make it a mystery beyond comprehension. But we know Joseph Smith actually loved to dabble in translating languages. Read the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and see how he translated whole phrases from a foreign language into regular English. Oh, and let us not forget that Joseph Smith pretended to know Egyptian when he said, “Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]” (Times & Seasons; November 1, 1843)

William Schryver knows that Joseph Smith didn’t translate the Egyptian correctly and had he made the same mistake in attempting to translate German into French the error would be the same.

The next trick William employs is providing a detailed blown up image of the Facsimile hieroglyphic characters in question in effort to divert attention. There is no reason to provide this kind of detail. It’s simply his way to try and impress people and make them think he has studied them under a microscope and surely he knows all about the ins and outs of the characters. He is simply trying to take the attention off the real issue of Egyptian characters being translated into the name Shulem which clearly he as was Joseph Smith unable to do. The picture was a big hit but Williams’ apologetic explanations are miniature morsels that lack substance.



William is actually ready to tell a truth? Wow, that would be impressive.



Here William again improperly employs the word ASSIGN and attempts to lesson the impact of an obvious determination that professional scientists and linguists would conclude by trying to make things look less than certain. He points out that there are two registers above the hand as if that is somehow supposed to confuse the issue or make it impossible for scientists to get to the truth of the matter at hand. It’s just William’s way to divert the mind away from making Joseph Smith accountable by trying to overcomplicate things.




As if we couldn’t figure that out without William having to tell us this. Let us not be diverted lest we digress further.



Here we see William using an apologetic trick to try and confuse the issue yet again. He is emphasizing the word REPRESENTED as if it was simply an icon or a means to an end but not a real translation as one would get from converting German into French. Translating a language is for the purpose that both parties may be edified and read the same thing and have the same record.

Joseph Smith claimed to translate the name Shulem from the characters just as he claimed to identify that there was a king’s name in the characters as revealed for fig 2: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”. You will note that Joseph Smith said that there was a royal name GIVEN in the characters above the head. That means the characters of a royal name are actually there and could be translated by someone who regularly knows how to translate Egyptian. Hence, the same could be applied to our name Shulem. The word represented has direct correlation to making an actual translation from one language to another.

William Schryver is a liar and a lousy Book of Abraham apologist. I have no respect for him

Paul O

Oh, my! What an entertaining thread this turned into!

[Pauses to compose himself ...]

Oh, by the way, Paul, these are not the words of Joseph Smith:



They are the words of William Wines Phelps. You should study more history and drink less Jack Daniels.

And where did Phelps get the idea for this "translation??"

Silly William. . . . I have my facts. You are no match against me when it comes to arguing these matters. I will rip you to pieces! I will tear you apart!! I will crush you.

“Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]”

(Times & Seasons; November 1, 1843)

The source comes from Viator, a bit of a mystery man, a nonMormon but very friendly towards the Church and an outright opponent to the enemies of Mormonism. He just wasn’t won over by Mormonism but was ever interested in Mormon philosophy.

Viator apparently retrieved letters from the trash can which were written by General Joseph Smith and General Bennett - the prophet having studiously replied to Bennett. Copies of these letters were sent to the Times and Seasons for publication. The paper was edited by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, both of which later became Presidents of the Church.

Joseph Smith’s letter sounds every much like himself. No one else could have wrote those things. It was him, most assuredly.

The previous edition of the Times and Seasons contains an excerpt from Viator who contributed some interesting things to say including some passages from a translation of Isaiah. The editor of the paper was impressed with Viator saying, “There is something so very novel and interesting in the communication of "Viator," that we cannot let is pass without making a few remarks. Whoever the gentleman is who is the author of the following translation, he is evidently a man of great tact and genius, and of no mean literary attainments”.

In closing, the contents of the Egyptian words and phrases found in the letter in question are every much Joseph Smith’s creation. It is related to the Alphabet & Grammar, Book of Abraham, and Facsimile Explanations.

----------------------
TIMES AND SEASONS.
CITY OF NAUVOO,
TUESDAY, MARCH, 15, 1842.
TO SUBSCRIBERS.

This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision. JOSEPH SMITH.